New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-08-26
AN OUTLINE OF THE DECISION.

SHARP TIE JUDGE SAYS, WAS FORCED TO TESTIFY
AGAINST HIMsELF-ACCOMPucEs
Tne decision of Judge Potter seventeen closely
written PAGES OF foolscap parer After stating the
nature Of the motion which he is called upon TO decide
and dwelling upon the necessity OF examining closely
the record of the proceedings in the case he says:
Having become impressed with the clear CONVECTION thss
he ysae offered by the that tho.s
appellate court must s,Sa' "a. s sSasne. snv fsr @
hsT than il had relation to the objections and ex
SssSs Sssss Of the trial Judge e,anns
the Sa1se csr aaS p a% and sndG ans
Of the Jury those pofops Sap o @ tb ra In
my opn incompetent evidence Was received upon the tA
n1 The tesnony given the defendant before the Rail
road o, ' sspa .sd 70 obtain the
local authorities to construct 'he bro~u"Ay Su'
2 The fact OF persons charged in the ndct
the defendant with the crime OF
against the defendant by the er "a ,o
the or purpose De Lacy when he handed Miller hs
Gs testimony given by defendant answer to qne
tons put to BY seuate COMMITTEES and It's counsel
hs r. OF the Indictment the defendant for bribery Of one
Of s9mss sS BSard 10 o. eSSspac the BrOadway railroad
decidedly sm.iOn .i 's OF sSs5 RnSa ssstiucny
The rule and before Tue adopSon Of me Con
mat witness should bo obliged TO give evidence which
SSGS be .s@ in i
Of thi, state IN these Tors person % h no
srlft The same principle spprehend 10 substantially con-
tanned Terms IN the bl OF Ehts OF VI
every state the Union. Under the Consututonst
The witness the OF ms testimony
ags,n,t himself refusing TO give any testimony when
be Under legal immunity ihc sAuie result rs
by law that his testimony sha not %
While the result IS tno same the pIsc
oneran of the principle varies according 10 ls orFu
rysa from, tho the witness must assert MS
decline answer whol Tie question II Ase,
r n. w.y.s his pt This evidence was osJeceu -
non the trial OF Tho defendant but was received potw
st,nng and thus defendant was deprived Oh MS oeo
witness he 10 nound 10 answer OF 20
tempt In the manner ne NAV Oe puu
he refuses u answer "hen sne "of
he used against him. .h. o,.st.ar
The Judge discusses at some length tho qucston
whether sharp obliged 10 answer tho p"Ss" .ns
which were put him during mo lnvesugao1 S m1
Raroad Com mittee OF the Senate In april iooo, ane
Concludes that he In regard TO tue SUN more ,
question as TO whether snsrps answers veore
H. ss,st coumltoe could be used against nlin IN MS
trial for bribery. the Judge reviews sae ~ "a
the Legislation OF the state 10 regaru 70 Po "~
W ho gave Information about oripory anu sus
The privilege whch VS. y, ~ "
.nacsJ Iv universal exemption IN respect oil oflueIy ~
~ inssmuoh 10 substitute for privilege
v, nv The constitution the courts wend give hs
s,a,mrs liberal construction Consmer LOT ~ osmen'
ssrs tIs coutenton of the prosecution would Lsaai
10 give evidence in relation TO the crime Oh orivey
1, hc he was connected aud tho statutes proec. Vim
49,, nse himself all places and upon every
cas,n and argued that the LegisA,urs
committee and there be compeiisu "
ssmr testimony that testimony may 20 usen he
s,msslf whsn upon for such bribery tnss
Legi has set = trap ior tho ciuIen sH1 s
deuslve words saveraI
In support Of his opinion Justice Potter ei'e' ''''